about summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/src/test/compile-fail/dst-bad-coerce4.rs
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorLines
2018-08-14Moved compile-fail tests to ui tests.David Wood-35/+0
2017-06-29Move unsized_tuple_coercion behind a feature gate.Masaki Hara-0/+2
2017-06-29Add unsized tuple coercions.Masaki Hara-0/+8
2016-05-02update test cases to reflect new messagesNiko Matsakis-4/+3
2015-01-12Fix testsuite errorsmdinger-1/+5
2015-01-06test fallout from isize/usizeCorey Richardson-4/+4
2015-01-06FalloutNick Cameron-1/+1
2014-12-20Allow use of `[_ ; n]` syntax for fixed length and repeating arrays.Nick Cameron-2/+2
This does NOT break any existing programs because the `[_, ..n]` syntax is also supported.
2014-10-03Change rustc pretty-printing to print [T, ..n] instead of [T, .. n]P1start-1/+1
2014-08-26Rebasing changesNick Cameron-2/+2
2014-08-26DST coercions and DST structsNick Cameron-0/+22
[breaking-change] 1. The internal layout for traits has changed from (vtable, data) to (data, vtable). If you were relying on this in unsafe transmutes, you might get some very weird and apparently unrelated errors. You should not be doing this! Prefer not to do this at all, but if you must, you should use raw::TraitObject rather than hardcoding rustc's internal representation into your code. 2. The minimal type of reference-to-vec-literals (e.g., `&[1, 2, 3]`) is now a fixed size vec (e.g., `&[int, ..3]`) where it used to be an unsized vec (e.g., `&[int]`). If you want the unszied type, you must explicitly give the type (e.g., `let x: &[_] = &[1, 2, 3]`). Note in particular where multiple blocks must have the same type (e.g., if and else clauses, vec elements), the compiler will not coerce to the unsized type without a hint. E.g., `[&[1], &[1, 2]]` used to be a valid expression of type '[&[int]]'. It no longer type checks since the first element now has type `&[int, ..1]` and the second has type &[int, ..2]` which are incompatible. 3. The type of blocks (including functions) must be coercible to the expected type (used to be a subtype). Mostly this makes things more flexible and not less (in particular, in the case of coercing function bodies to the return type). However, in some rare cases, this is less flexible. TBH, I'm not exactly sure of the exact effects. I think the change causes us to resolve inferred type variables slightly earlier which might make us slightly more restrictive. Possibly it only affects blocks with unreachable code. E.g., `if ... { fail!(); "Hello" }` used to type check, it no longer does. The fix is to add a semicolon after the string.